medieval-religion: Scholarly discussions of medieval religion and culture
On 21/06/2011 18:58, Christopher Crockett wrote:
> From: John Briggs<[log in to unmask]>
>
>>> "The myth of cistercian origins: C.H. Berman and the manuscript sources,"
> Cîteaux: commentarii cistercienses, LI, 2000, pp. 299-386.
>>> to my knowledge, it is not available on-line.
>
>> And not easy to find in libraries accessible to me. Its length seems
> excessive,
>
> or, perhaps, too meticulous?
>
> but, not having read it, perhaps you know better than i.
>
> calling it a "review" (as i believe i may have done) is a mistake --it's a
> carefully focused, meticulous critique.
"Obsessive" is probably the word I'm groping for.
> he was kind enough to send me an offprint of it when it came out, which is
> lost, in an archeological context, somewhere in my house.
>
> i did read through it at the time, and thought that he exposed enough clear
> mistakes in Berman's scholarship to qualify it as a fairly substantial piece
> of work.
It is obviously "substantial", the point is whether it is accurate - and
proportionate, of course.
>> and the place in which it is published is hardly disinterested.
>
> yes, you're certainly right there: Cîteaux is definitely "interested" in
> Cistercian history.
>
>> (It is billed as a "Communication", so it seems unsolicited rather than a
> commissioned review.
>
> your point here being...?
That it is not a "Recension". (They don't bother with Latin on the website.)
> the journal is, typically, organized into "Articuli," "Communicationes," and
> "Recensiones" :
>
> http://www.citeaux.org/fr/dernier2.htm
>
> Chrysogonus' piece was more than a review, but the distinction between
> Articuli and Communicationes is way too fine for a relapsed Protestant like
> myself to discern.
Articles are supposed to be longer (or at any rate more "substantial")
than "communications". A crucial factor may be the question of peer
review, of course.
> in any case, as best i can recall (dimly), he limited himself to only one part
> of Berman's work.
>
>> The same appears to be true of the 13-page review in the same issue by B.P.
> McGuire.)
>
> among the "Recensiones," i presume.
No, it was amongst the "Communications" - which is what I said.
> your point here being...?
That it was unsolicited, I think.
>>> a summary abstract is here:
>
>>> http://cat.inist.fr/?aModele=afficheN&cpsidt=13399177
>
>> I wouldn't like to have to summarise an 88-page rant in 200 words,
>
> yeahbut, it's o.k. for you to characterize this particular, meticulous,
> detailed, point-by-point critique (which, btw, you have not even seen) as a
> "rant"?
I think the abstract raises enough doubts.
>> but I certainly wouldn't have included "Just because vehicle traffic in
> downtown Chicago was denser after 1950 than before does not mean that rules
> governing the traffic are unlikely to have existed prior to 1950" unless that
> was the strongest part of the argument.
>
> one of the many joys of attending Chrysogonus' k'zoo presentations over a
> period of more than a decade was wonderful sense of humor.
>
> or, humour.
Maybe it doesn't travel well :-)
>>> a somewhat more sympathetic reivew of Berman's thesis by John Sommerfeldt,
> which takes a broader historiographic viewpoint is here
>
>>> http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_hb050/is_4_70/ai_n28885965/
>
>> He's basically agreeing with Berman, but keeping his head down in case he is
> attacked by mouthy Trappists.
>
> yeah, Sommerfeldt is noted for his missing head, at all of the Cistercian
> sessions which he attends (and chairs) at k'zoo every year --those Trappists
> can be *mean* s.o.b.s, when they are provoked.
>
>>> he says, "Waddell concludes, 'the book, in its major theses and in many of
> its details, is simply wrong'" (p. 360).
>
>> Yes, but Waddell had to. Just as the Franciscans and Dominicans became
> Inquisitors precisely because they themselves had been suspected of heresy and
> they had to prove their orthodoxy, so Waddell had to lead the Cistercian
> attack on Berman precisely because he had been working along
> similar lines himself, and because she drew on that earlier work of his.
>
> goodness, what a mouthful.
>
> sounds like a mouthy Trappist.
>
> i've got no Skin in this Game at all, and my specific knowledge of Things
> Cistercian is Marginal, at best.
Cistercian history is definitely complicated (bedevilled, some would
say) by the presence of Cistercians.
> truth be told, i'm more a fan of Walter Map's POV about those folks, though i
> did attend some of the Cistercian sessions every year at k'zoo for over a
> decade, came to know many of the attendees, including Chrysogonus, and was
> generally very, very impressed by the high quality of the papers delivered.
>
> Terryl Kinder, the long-time editor of Cîteaux, is an old friend of mine from
> Indiana U.; her husband, David Bell, is one of the most spectacular scholars
> i've ever come across.
And this spat certainly illustrates the hazards of Kinder's strategy of
engaging with the Cistercians.
> Chrysogonus' critique of Berman's thesis will stand or fall on the precise
> points which he makes in it.
Not necessarily - they may be completely irrelevant.
>>> i don't know if Berman ever responded to Chrysogonus' review.
>
>> She did. Cîteaux published a 5-page "Response to McGuire and Waddell" in
>> vol. LIII, 2002, pp.333-337, to which Waddell was allowed a 6-page "Reply"
>> (pp.339-344) and McGuire one of two pages (pp.345-346.)
>
> you've read these, but not Chrysogonus' original Rant?
No - I've read the Cîteaux website (more thoroughly than you, it would
seem.) Because of their odd way of working I can't link to the relevant
contents list - you will have to pursue it through "Sommaire des numéros
précédents".
>> She got her revenge in a dismissive review of Waddell's "Narrative and
>> Legislative Texts from Early Cîteaux."
>
> where was that published?
The Journal of Ecclesiastical History (2004), vol. 55, pp.766-768.
John Briggs
**********************************************************************
To join the list, send the message: join medieval-religion YOUR NAME
to: [log in to unmask]
To send a message to the list, address it to:
[log in to unmask]
To leave the list, send the message: leave medieval-religion
to: [log in to unmask]
In order to report problems or to contact the list's owners, write to:
[log in to unmask]
For further information, visit our web site:
http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/lists/medieval-religion.html
|